If they made a 25th century TV series, would you watch it?

[C.E. Evans]

And just where is the pitch document which said "The new Star Trek is set in the 24th century" full stop? No, the premise of that show was it's a new generation of characters on a new ship many years after Kirk and Co., not "the 24th century".

It's no difference whatsoever.

 

[Melakon]

After that television series by Glen Larson, we should just let Buck Rogers keep the 25th century to himself.

 

[Ryan8bit]

And just where is the pitch document which said "The new Star Trek is set in the 24th century" full stop? No, the premise of that show was it's a new generation of characters on a new ship many years after Kirk and Co., not "the 24th century".

It's no difference whatsoever.

Yeah, and even the OP clarified as much.

But it's really a common sense question. Of course everybody here would actually watch at least an episode of it. The question is if they would keep watching it, and there's no way to know that because the premise isn't enough to give an idea of the quality. It really is too generic of a question.

Maybe if it were rephrased as, "Are you interested in a 25th century series?" then there would be a lot more no votes. I think that's probably what a lot of the no votes currently are for anyways. Or people are more interested in the JJ stuff only or think that this is just another "prime continuity" issue. Is it?

 

[2takesfrakes]

I have absolutely no desire to see a 25th Century STAR TREK. This need to keep pushing it into the next century beyond the last TREK is just absurd, to me. Sorry ... I would not watch it.

 

[bbjeg]

^I was going to say some people would outright not watch it but 2takesfrankes is the other side of the coin on the subject (the last one did, but your current avatar does not take two takes ). I like making polls (enough to have a Modder point it out) just to see what kind of fans are out there. I personally liked the continuing mission, and even though I like NuTrek, I'd prefer another generation skip.

 

[anh165]

If you read between the lines, setting a "Trek" TV show based on being further in the future simply means more of the same ideas and story telling that killed Star Trek 10 years ago, so this means new Federation ships, new baddies with lumps on their heads, and new technobabble for the heros to shoot themselves out of trouble with.

This will appeal to the 245 purists in this world who would watch it on youtube, but an instant fail in the entertainment mainstream.

 

[C.E. Evans]

There was quite a lot of negativity about TNG when it was first announced: "Why go forward a century?" "It won't work without Kirk and Spock." "No one will buy it." "It will fail horribly."

 

[bbjeg]

If you read between the lines, setting a "Trek" TV show based on being further in the future simply means more of the same ideas and story telling that killed Star Trek 10 years ago, so this means new Federation ships, new baddies with lumps on their heads, and new technobabble for the heros to shoot themselves out of trouble with.

They could have done the NuTrek story in the 25th century or even better. All you need is the right writers and it's not like the same old federation, same old baddies and same old technobabble rebooted is going to last 20 years down the line.

This will appeal to the 245 purists in this world who would watch it on youtube, but an instant fail in the entertainment mainstream.

That's your opinion. There is nothing factual that would prove a 25th century show would instantly fail.

 

[2takesfrakes]

(2takesfrankes ... your current avatar does not take two takes ).

Oh, you think so, eh? My current avatar does not take two takes? It doesn't ... "do it" ... for ya? Now, listen, here: Genie Francis is Jonathan Frakes' all ... his Real Life "Imzadi." Together, they make perfect sense - as a couple and as my current avatar ...